In Homage to Catalonia (1938), his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell describes how his wife was rudely woken by a police-raid on the hotel room she was occupying in Barcelona:

In the small hours of the morning there was a pounding on the door, and six men marched in, switched on the light, and immediately took up various positions about the room, obviously agreed upon beforehand. They then searched both rooms (there was a bathroom attached) with inconceivable thoroughness. They sounded the walls, took up the mats, examined the floor, felt the curtains, probed under the bath and the radiator, emptied every drawer and suitcase and felt every garment and held it up to the light. (Homage to Catalonia, ch. 14)

The police conducted this search “in the recognized OGPU [then the Russian communist secret-police] or Gestapo style … for nearly two hours,” Orwell says. He then notes that in “all this time they never searched the bed.” His wife was still in it, you see, and although the police “were probably Communist Party members … they were also Spaniards, and to turn a woman out of bed was a little too much for them. This part of the job was silently dropped, making the whole search meaningless.”

Orwell’s story suggests a new word to me: typhlophthalmism, meaning “the practice of turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts” (from Greek typhlos, “blind,” + ophthalmos, “eye”). But it’s a long word, so let’s call it typhlism for short. Shorter is better, because the term could be used so often today. Orwell’s story is an allegory of modern Western politics and social commentary, where so many essential but inconvenient facts are “silently dropped” from analysis. For example, the Labour MP Denis MacShane and the Labour council in Rotherham were typhlistic when, for reasons of political correctness, they turned a blind eye to the horrors being committed by brown-skinned Muslims against White working-class girls.

Looking for Mr Reitman

And if you want to see another good example of typhlism at work, try one of the strangest and funniest scandals ever to set the Owl of Minerva hooting in the groves of Academe. The two central figures in the scandal are the New York University (NYU) professor Avital Ronell (born 1952) and her former graduate student Nimrod Reitman (born c. 1984). Ms Ronell, a “feminist literary theorist,” began her career studying with the enormously influential French philosopher Jacques Derrida and is now the Jacques Derrida Professor at the European Graduate School in Switzerland. As a sideline, she headed “the trauma and violence transdisciplinary studies program” at NYU. She is also a “self-defined lesbian,” while Mr Reitman is a homosexual.

Academic star Avital Ronell

Their respective sexualities, although not of course funny in themselves, are an essential part of what has made the scandal so entertaining. Mr Reitman has accused Ms Ronell of a sustained campaign of sexual harassment, including two incidents in which his 66-year-old lesbian mentor pulled him into her bed and “put my hands onto her breasts, and was pressing herself — her buttocks — onto my crotch. She was kissing me, kissing my hands, kissing my torso.”

“Sweet cuddly Baby”

To support his accusations, Reitman has published a series of emails sent to him by Ronell, who referred to him as “my most adored one,” “Sweet cuddly Baby,” “cock-er [sic] spaniel,” and “my astounding and beautiful Nimrod.” Ronell has defended herself vigorously against these accusations, which Reitman made under the American Title IX legislation originally intended to protect vulnerable female students from predatory male teachers. She has described Reitman as “miserable” and “needy,” and explained the emails as “hyperbolic gay dialect,” “florid and campy communications” between “two adults, a gay man and a queer woman” “arising from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities.”

Academic superstar Judith Butler

And Ronell hasn’t lacked for powerful defenders. Internationally famous academics, headed by the American “feminist scholar” Judith Butler, the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, and the Indian hermeneuticianGayatri Spivak, wrote a letter in her defense to NYU, expressing “in the clearest terms our profound and enduring admiration for Professor Ronell” and deploring the “legal nightmare” into which Reitman’s accusations had plunged this “stellar scholar” renowned for her “brilliant scholarship and spirit of intellectual generosity.” The letter noted that “some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her” — a dark hint about Reitman’s character if ever I saw one.

But the letter merely injected a further maelstrom of runaway fireworks into the whole legal circus (as mistress of metaphor Molly K. McKew might put it). It was meant to be private, but was leaked to the philosophy blog Leiter Reports, where it was published under the title “Blaming the victim is apparently OK when the accused in a Title IX proceeding is a feminist literary theorist.” Judith Butler, the first and most important signatory, was accused of abusing her powerful position as president-elect of the Modern Language Association (MLA) and had to issue an apology to the MLA for invoking its name and prestige.

All four of them are Jews

There is a lot to be said about the scandal and about the post-modern academic milieu in which it erupted. A lot of people have duly said it. For some, it has been a welcome opportunity to assail post-modern academia and what one hostile critic has called “deconstructionist theory with a feminist/lesbian cast.” But all of this commentary has been subject to typhlism, because no-one has taken account of an obvious and important fact: all four of the most important figures associated with the scandal are drawn from a single tiny ethnic minority. This is a singularly Semitic scandal, because Avital Ronell, Nimrod Reitman, Judith Butler and Jacques Derrida are all Jews. Indeed, Ronell and Reitman are both “of Israeli heritage.”

Academic megastar Jacques Derrida

But that is not the only reason that the scandal is singularly Semitic. The unhinged behaviour of both Ronell and Reitman casts an unforgiving light on Jewish psychology and on the strong Jewish tendency towards both megalomania and malice. Bernd Hüppauf, a German academic who worked at NYU and was ousted by Ronell after giving her a job there, offers this assessment of his nemesis in the left-wing journal Salon:

Before I offered Avital Ronell her job, I’d had many in-depth conversations with her. She engaged my queries with what seemed like understanding. She said she’d throw herself into the building of an integrated study and research program. She promised actively to contribute to department research, conferences and publications. Once she had assumed the position, however, she broke all her promises. She did her best to sabotage the program. She pursued one goal: The work of Avital Ronell and Jacques Derrida must be at the center of all teaching and research. Instead of an academic program, we were left with boundless narcissism. Once she’d become the head of the German department, she had her secretary announce in a departmental meeting that in the German department no student’s written work would any longer be acceptable unless it cited Derrida and Ronell. …

The quality of teaching in the department unraveled. The carefully planned program of teaching German literature was ignored. Many students arrived in the department with minimal knowledge of German literature or history. The courses that were meant to correct this no longer existed. Now philosophy, from Hegel to Judith Butler, was taught. But multidisciplinarity quickly deteriorated into dilettantism. Students were encouraged to take philosophy seminars at other universities. Soon, students who had learned about deconstruction and feminism in Paris, but who had no idea who Gottfried Benn, Joseph Roth and Alfred Döblin were, were no exception in the department. As one student told me, “We study in a German department where French theory is taught in English.” …

Included in Professor Ronell’s instruments of domination was the absolute control of information. Information streams were strictly controlled, and a thick net was spun that captured and distributed them as she saw fit. At a department meeting Professor Ronell let it be known through her secretary that no member of the department would be allowed to make contact with any dean at NYU without her (Professor Ronell’s) explicit consent. Soon after that, there were no more department meetings. Information was exchanged only in one-on-one conversations. Whoever did not belong to the inner circle had no access to information. …

I have saved a letter from a student who was close enough to Avital Ronell to study her in detail. He was an older student who had completed training as a psychotherapist. He had wanted to write his dissertation under her guidance. After one year, he gave up, disillusioned, and left the department. I quote from an E-mail he wrote to Professor Ronell:

From my interactions with you and observing you in various settings, you give the impression that you suffer from a well-known mental illness referred to as malignant narcissism in a borderline structure … There are clear clinical descriptions of sadistic object relations. You may get some sense of why your criticisms of students are so often felt to be destructive and disillusioning: you appear to be unable to control your sadism.

Hüppauf also notes that “squeezing me out wasn’t enough for Ronell. … At a public event she labeled me an anti-Semite. Not that she actually believed this smear. But the accusation, once uttered, was not easy to unhear, and since it fit into her political calculations, she had no scruples deploying it.” No scruples? Devious manipulation and power-grabbing? Surely those are classic “anti-Semitic” accusations. That they all seem to be perfectly true makes no difference in the modern world. Typhlism rules, remember.

But Ronell didn’t win all that power and control on her own. Just as she promoted Derrida’s and Butler’s work and reputation, so her friends promoted hers. In other words, the scandal also reveals the ethnic nepotism that has allowed Jews to dominate and corrupt certain fields in modern academia. I would say that Derrida, Butler, Ronell and Reitman are all intellectual charlatans who owe their success to ethnic nepotism and imposture. Judith Butler and Jacques Derrida, two giants of the modern humanities, have contributed nothing to serious scholarship, but enormous amounts to obscurantism and logorrhoea. Derrida’s philosophy is obscurantism, but with a strong ingredient of ethnic interests. As philosopher John Caputo puts it, “the idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue” (here, p. 200). In other words, it is a philosophy which is useful in subverting the traditional peoples and cultures of the West, a common theme in Jewish intellectual activism in the diaspora.

Butler has worked hard to strengthen the hold of this anti-White philosophy on Western universities. Criticism and mockery of her execrable scholarship have had no effect. She once won first prize in the Bad Writing Contest overseen by the late philosopher Denis Dutton. Her winning piece, taken from an entirely serious article published in “the scholarly journal Diacritics,” is an excellent example of how to get to the top in po-mo academe:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. (Bad Writing Contest for 1998)

Covert maternal tropologies

Ronell and Reitman themselves have ploughed similar but smaller furrows in the same fatuous post-modern fields. The graduate thesis written by the latter and overseen by the former was about “covert maternal tropologies and disruptions effected by femininity in theories of subjectivity.” None of the four is a serious scholar, but three of them — Derrida, Butler and Ronell — have enjoyed serious prestige, exercised enormous intellectual influence and wielded great academic power. Ethnic nepotism has plainly been involved: the Jewish charlatan Ronell began her career as the protégée of the Jewish charlatan Derrida, whose “16-year-old son Pierre Alferi” she seduced when she was 27. Now that Ronell’s attempted seduction of another young Jewish male has backfired, she has been warmly supported by the Jewish charlatan Judith Butler. She has also been warmly supported by Ilan Safit, “a visiting German scholar at NYU who has known Ronell for decades.” If you’re thinking that Ilan Safit is not a very German name, you’re right: Safit is another Israeli.

Two of a Tribe: Butler and Ronell

No mainstream writer has commented on this obvious ethnic pattern and the centrality of Jews to the Ronell scandal. Indeed, the literary critic Marjorie Perloff, also Jewish but not an admirer of “deconstructionist theory,” seems anxious to draw attention away from the pattern. Surveying the signatories of what she calls “the notorious Butler letter,” she noted in the LA Review of Books that “except for … Manthia Diawara and Gayatri Spivak, all are white — a fact no one has mentioned but which surely tells us something.” But does it tell us something? Is the failure to mention the Whiteness of the signatories an example of typhlism? I don’t think so. Reitman’s supporters are also overwhelmingly “White” and “deconstructionist theory with a feminist/lesbian cast” is a very “White” field. But it’s much more diverse in other ways than a field like physics or computer science. Women, lesbians and homosexuals are found there in far greater numbers.

And one of the superstars of “deconstruction” is the brown-skinned Indian woman Gayatri Spivak (dot, not feather), who was also one of the signatories to the notorious letter in support of Ronell. Spivak is not as stellar as the “White” Judith Butler, who is president-elect of the powerful Modern Language Association, but Ms Butler is a lesbian. If an Indian and a lesbian are so prominent in deconstruction, we can see that the field is certainly not holding oppressed minorities back. But Spivak and Butler are also examples of how the field doesn’t hold back two other groups: gasbags and intellectual charlatans. In fact, I would say that only gasbags and intellectual charlatans can flourish there.

A paradigmatic case

That’s why Jews are so hugely over-represented both in the scandal and in the academic fields it has shaken. The Ronell scandal is more proof of what Kevin MacDonald has said about Jewish intellectuals like Derrida, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas. It is not the quality of their scholarship that has allowed figures like Derrida, Butler and Ronell to flourish in Western academia, but their ethnic networking. Ronell’s intensive activism on behalf of Derrida is a paradigmatic case, turning the department supposedly devoted to study of German literature into little more than a subsidiary of Derrida’s obscurantism in the service of subverting the culture of the West. In fact, the scandal provides an example of all the background traits for Jewish activism identified by MacDonald: Ethnocentrism and ethnic networking, intelligence (their jargon-filled nonsense nevertheless requires high verbal IQ), their aggressiveness (Ronell single-handedly turning an entire department to her purposes against the wishes of previous faculty), and psychological intensity (the emotional energy that fuels the aggression needed to carry this through in the face of strong opposition).

All these things are obvious in the Ronell scandal, but no respectable commentator can mention them. Typhlism is imposed on mainstream academics and journalists because any criticism of Jews will be savagely punished. Derrida and his followers haven’t done as much harm to Western civilization as Freud or Marx and their followers, but they’ve done far too much all the same. So long as charlatans like Judith Butler and Avital Ronell retain their power and prestige, we can draw only one conclusion. Western academia is corrupt, diseased and malignant. God or Mother Nature gave us eyes for a reason: to observe important aspects of reality and act on them to benefit or protect ourselves. Typhlism stops us doing that, which is why typhlism has to end.

We write as long-term colleagues of Professor Avital Ronell who has been under investigation by the Title IX offices at New York University. Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell and accumulated collectively years of experience to support our view of her capacity as teacher and a scholar, but also as someone who has served as Chair of both the Departments of German and Comparative Literature at New York University. We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in the clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable over many years. We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her. We hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.

As you know, Professor Ronell has changed the course of German Studies, Comparative Literature, and the field of philosophy and literature over the years of her teaching, writing, and service. She is responsible for building the field of literary studies at New York University, but also throughout Europe as a result of her brilliant scholarship and spirit of intellectual generosity. Her students now teach at leading research institutions in the US, France, and Germany, and her intellectual influence is felt throughout the humanities, including media and technology studies, feminist theory, and comparative literary study. There is arguably no more important figure in literary studies at New York University than Avital Ronell whose intellectual power and fierce commitment to students and colleagues has established her as an exemplary intellectual and mentor throughout the academy. As you know, she is the Jacques Derrida Chair of Philosophy at the European Graduate School and she was recently given the award of Chevalier of Arts and Letters by the French government.

We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation. If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing loss for the humanities, for New York University, and for intellectual life during these times would be no less than enormous and would rightly invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We ask that you approach this material with a clear understanding of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship, the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field, her enduring commitments to the university, and the illuminated world she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive in her company and under her guidance. She deserves a fair hearing, one that expresses respect, dignity, and human solicitude in addition to our enduring admiration.

The federal government is only the root of the problem because it hasn’t implemented quotas limiting Jewish representation in academia. It’s possible to misallocate resources in any government scheme and totally unrealistic to expect the government to be able to cut through the BS in every instance. Ideally we’d prevent charlatans from displacing honest academics before they can request any grants. Documenting how they do it and get away with it and speaking frankly about the ethnic roots of the behavior is better than blaming something as amorphous as government spending.

” They pay for the results they want “. Similar to the allegedly ” independent ” research and government certification by the Sackler’s Purdue Pharmaceuticals with their devastating Oxycontin. The extended family stakeholders made the tens of billions in profits per annum, while the taxpayer is left with the incalculable financial and social consequences.

According to Ruttenberg they had no other choice to make an honest living, since, perhaps, two hundred years ago their ancestors’ house was burnt in some unpronounceable backwater, entitling them to burn an entire country, as ordained by their God.

Rabbi Ruttenberg , as author of books, lectures and pamphlets on sexuality as it pertains to Judaism, squarely belongs to the abovementioned group of self-promoting celebrity alchemists.

During an interview by Haaretz, she was asked whether she was familiar with the following joke; [ paraphrased ]:

A woman asks her rabbi whether certain positions were okayed by the Talmud ? Of course ! How about oral sex ? Of course ! How about anal sex ? One can ” turn the table ” ! How about while standing up ? OH NO, THAT COULD LEAD TO FORBIDDEN CLOSE DANCING !!!

While more educational than ” a rabbi meets a priest in the bar ” joke, it demonstrates their alchemist thought process: at the bottom of this and other sites’ eternal circular struggle.

Ugly, sawed off Rumpelstiltskin, who, as we all know, spun straw into gold at his wheel, must be venerated by these curiosities. I can visualize and hear them singing their anthem : Oh, wie gut dass keiner weiss, dass ich Rumpelstilzchen heiss , opening their world-wide formal conferences.

The Grimm brothers added this tale to their vast collection, but a 100 years prior to the creation of the Fed, and one can only speculate on a previous connection and possible message, not infrequently popularized as children’s literature: affording plausible denial.

Read a brief synopsis of Rumpelstiltskin and tell me, that the evil little but purportedly helpful Rumpelstiltskin is not the extortionist Rothschild. The dumb miller, summoned by his King, inflates himself by bragging, that his pretty daughter can spin gold from straw. The King locks her in a room filled with straw, with the caveat, that were she not turn it all into gold by the next morning she would die.

R comes to her help and does it for her, in return for her necklace. The avaricious King repeats the scenario for the next day. Again, R comes to her rescue, demanding her ring. On the third day, she has nothing to offer but her first born, after she weds the King.

R returns to claim her child: maternal tears move R to the altered condition that she guesses his name within three days. Thousands of names are mentioned: none correct. Then her name researcher happens onto R in front of his hut in the woods, dancing around a fire, singing : Oh how fortunate that no one knows, that I am Rumpelstilzchen. Conveyed to the Queen, her baby remains hers.

Easier than a study of the alchemist creation of the Fed., or of the then also privately owned Bank of England. The King is eternal Government. R, covertly, its underwriting purveyor/whoremaster. The Miller the short-sighted avaricious Merchant. His daughter the hapless, consistently abused Public, set adrift by her father, King and R.

Thanks for that one Charles. For all of “their” talk about empathy, diversity, etc. none of what they write offers an understanding of and sympathy with other people. None of what they force down our throats shows any genuine interest in people as people, and in respect for them as individuals, which alone is what is most wanted in any teaching-learning situation that can be called truly educational.

There are profound, deep-seated, powerful drives that sway the destiny of nations. For an understanding of them we have to turn to the record itself. And that is found in the Arts in general and literature in particular.

This much the Hostile Elite understands. So they use the attributes listen in this excellent article to essentially block the young student from entering into an understanding and appreciation of that record.

Happiness today, for us at least, depends on discovering that record for oneself, find at least one sympathetic friend in the flesh that you can talk to about that record (and as many as possible in print, online) and avoiding the hostile elite, their proxies and flying monkies who have come to occupy* and run our social-institutions. It’s a tall order, but it can be done.

That’s the right word. The West is Occupied Territory. And the only way to liberate an occupied territory is through aggression. This can be easily verified. Just check the record.

That’s an excellent point. But it calls for a response. Especially in Hegel’s case. Hegel was literally constructing a new logic and innovating, on a grand scale, a new way of thinking. His major theme – cultural transcendence – was way ahead of its time (I don’t think he began to properly assessed until the 1960’s, and from a behavioral point of view, not ideological. And I don’t mean academic behavioralism either. They were never behavioral enough).

Also, we don’t need to compare Hegel with a contemporary who wrote in a way that was unmistakably clear, Schopenhauer, we can compare Hegel with Hegel. For example, The Phenomonology with his Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Right, or his short work on Art.

Also, The American Pragmatists*, who are all a pleasure to read because they wrote so well, all started out as Hegelians. So, as difficult as Hegel’s style could be at times (and there’s no question entire passages of The Phenomonology are inscrutible) one could still make sense of it and be inspired by it. In fact, I suspect he’s never really been equaled, except by the American Pragmatists, and that there is still much of value in his work.

But no one walks away from even the best Jewish thinkers (an oxymoron if there ever was one) feeling inspired. Confused and irritated maybe, but not inspired. They are a people whose verbal skills exceed their intellectual ability. Above all, their writings, and not just their writings, are proof that stupidity has little to do with intelligence, it has to do with something far more important, and something that can’t really be taught – judgment. This is why Schopenhauer referred to their thought as “that Jewish stench” adding that it could in no way be confused with Reason.

*Every experienced thinker and committed social critic should know their work by heart – especially TOO writers and readers; they still have not been matched, by anyone, anywhere – not even close.
And they are very useful to read for those of us concerned about White identity and interests and who are familiar with KM’s work and aware of and not in any way intimidated by the JQ. A solid grounding in their work adds a much needed perspective, sharpens the mind and helps one weed out the trolls and informants among us who respond to the wisdom great thinkers offer the way Dracula responds to the light of day.

My experience, for what it’s worth, is that in professional circles, homosexuals routinely create bizarre and narcissistic drama among themselves. Lesbians, for their part, have a powerful…I think the only word for it is hate, for normal white men. I’ve never known homosexual males and lesbians to get along very well with each other, either. Draw your own conclusions as to reasons for that.

When I was in the work force, and as a normal man, I found that it was much easier to work with male homos than lesbians. Once homos know you are not interested, they typically mind their own business, and get down to the work at hand. On the other hand, I would never work with a lesbian, if I had any choice. Never. I’d go hungry first. The Jewish angle in this situation makes the entire episode more distasteful, but more risible too. My guess is that the homo will lose out, job wise, but could possibly receive some kind of decent out of court payout from the college, to be used as hush money. He needs a Jewish lawyer to intercede. LOL.

Thanks for your observations. As it happens, my own experience is congruent with yours, most notably so at the Metropolitan Opera, where I worked for more than two decades before it occurred to me that making an actual living had something to be said for it. Of the million or so queens at Lincoln Center, I never met even one who wasn’t more comfortable with straights of either sex than with lesbians.

I will one day translate these (if permitted) to Finnish, so help me God.

In this world run by lunatics, it is the least I should do. We have exactly the same situation here, only difference being, that not so many Jews, but, oh boy, do they have some satellites and lackeys here. Oh yes, a plenty.

But yes, we have some genuine also, like, believe me or not, a name like Koko Hubara. Yes, she is a genuine. She sure looks like one and talks the same language of “stone-cold-crazy”.

Yes, she is not from the Academia, but she has, of course, been chosen as a “Sociologist of The Year”. She had quitted the University before the pleasure, claiming ” hidden racism”. Most likely this means a demand to take part in exams, but who cares?

One of her leading themes has been: “We all carry the oral heritage and so on…” In other words: Reading is a blasphemy, if the text is not written by her. If You are lucky, you can find some astonishing pictures of her. Though I recommend not to try.

Sad to say, Mr. Langdon’s article is a sermon preached to the converted. To say this is not to belittle its importance—reminders of one’s principles and the enemy’s constant assault upon them serve intellectual and moral ends—but to acknowledge the closed-mindedness of those who, were conditions otherwise, are positioned to profit the most from it. Since those people absolutely refuse to mend their ways, concerned students and their parents are surely confronted with a sort of catch-22: to acquire a higher education, one needs to scorn institutions of higher education.

On a related matter, anyone who follows Mr. Langdon’s link to the Leiter Report and spends a few hours rummaging around there, as I did, is unlikely to describe the experience as heartening, let alone edifying. In a nutshell, the intention of the blog and its author, Professor Brian Leiter, seems to be to defend the integrity of a curriculum composed of trivialities, irrelevancies, and absurdities—what Leiter and like-minded others seem to think is philosophy—from the assault of theorists, transgenderists, and old-fashioned neo-Marxists whose stock in trade consists of notions that are even more trivial, irrelevant, and absurd than those of Leiter and his allies. (How otherwise can one explain Leiter’s applause of lesbian feminist Kathleen Stock?) This reader at least came away from the experience wryly reflecting that the patent slander that medieval academic philosophizing was endless debate on the size of angelic corps de ballet performing on pinhead stages had been rendered nonfunctional by ideas that their present-day adherents don’t simply admit to but brag of.

In the early seventies, a former history teacher of mine, a very learned man, commented ruefully to me that some members of the college’s philosophy faculty had taken to discussing the ideas of Herbert Marcuse as if they mattered—that is, mattered outside the realm of power politics. He said that he feared that, unless checked, this conduct could end only in the department’s making itself intellectually contemptible. If only he had been right!

I recall people in Commentary in the 80s tut-tutting about those WASP bigots who so foolishly thought Lionel Trilling shouldn’t get tenure at Columbia because Jews couldn’t be trusted with our literary heritage. Trilling may have been alright, but the point still stands: it’s not a question of what one person might do, but what the group as a whole will do. Once they get in, whether it’s a country club or a faculty lounge, they start tearing things down. It’s not a conscious “conspiracy,” it’s in their genes; like the scorpion stinging the frog, “it’s what they are,”

Yes. This is the feeling I got when I went back and reread Jaques Barzun (esp. Of Human Freedom and Classic, Romantic, Modern) and John Dewey’s writing (from the late 1920’s to the mid 40’s, Freedom and Culture and The Public and Its Problems) with newly acquired JQ eyes.

Barzun and Trilling were friends and colleagues. Still, both Barzun and Dewey (and even G.H. Mead) inserted thinly veiled warnings (thinly veiled from a TOO perspective) within the promotion of their vision of Democracy.

We can’t make the same mistake as The Left in general and Jews in particular and judge the past by present day standards. I think Dewey and Barzun were in operating in good faith but that their idea that this would all work out was a judgment made in error. And even if they woke up to it in time (which I think they did) they wouldn’t have been able to say anything about it. Even back then it was already too late.

And there is still much of value in American Pragmatism for anyone looking for an intelligent alternative to Jewish Supremacist mind control and their pseudo-intellectual, pre-scientific alchemy.

That snippet from the Bad Writing Contest, though. That had me absolutely in tears of laughter. I’ve come across similar examples in my own travels through academia whereby a professor, quite high on his own gas, writes and publishes the textbook for the class, prices it at some extravagant amount, and demands the class study from it exclusively. Invariably, it always reads a lot like the above excerpt. Great article, and this is not a rare situation either. My own school career has been full of these leftist types, both jew and otherwise, all trying to outdo one another in a contest that seems more like intellectual Dada-ism than anything of educational substance.

Looking up to Tobias Langdon for a real morale booster per this article! Like “Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound”. Let this be another break through advancement in the slow march taking back our institutions, especially Corrupt Academia.

Another fine example of the method of self promotion within the tribe.
Spivak was born Gayatri Chakravorty. Who or what caused the “Spivak” to appear. That information does not appear to be readily available, but there has to be a tribal connection for her, as well.https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=spivak

I am not certain whether I should thank you or growl at you, friend Curmudgeon, for irritating my innards to the point where they generated, alas not a pearl, but instead the lowdown on how Ms. Chakravorty became Mrs. Spivak.

Here’s the deal. One source, famousbirthdays.com, says, “She was married to writer Talbot Spivak for a short time in the 1960s.” It was the work of mere moments to discover that Spivak’s dates are 1937–2006. Then, with a tip of the hat to the Startpage engine, I learned the following from the site of Florida Southwestern State College:

The Holocaust Memorial Project has been named in memory of its founding faculty member and has been in existence since 1996. Dr. Talbot Spivak gave nearly 21 years of dedicated service to Florida SouthWestern State College. He retired in 2006 and passed away shortly thereafter.

The remainder of the contents of this predictably sycophantic memorial page may be read here.

In short, chère Gayatri, having had her wicked will of poor, defenseless Talbot, discarded his corporeal remains with extreme prejudice whilst absorbing and retaining the chakra, shall we say, of his Jewishness.

One thing about today’s adventure that I really do thank you for is that it enabled my serendipitous encounter with Wikipedia’s alert at the head of the Spivak article: “This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.”

Truer words were never spoken, of course. But surely that warning should precede every Wikipedia article, shouldn’t it?

Such ‘ethnic nepotism’ is not just a feature of Mickey Mouse studies. In real science it is publish or perish to acquire funding, so the tribe has gone for this belatedly obvious weak spot: (as with the mainstream press and Hollywood) take over publishing. Check out the Editorial board of the major journal ‘Cell’ to see the truth in this. Real science is now bastardised and corrupted, and not just by money, although this too helps.

Comments are closed.

TOQLive with Prof. Drew Fraser, James Edwards, and Kevin MacDonald

Get Posts by Email

Enter Best email address to subscribe to this blog and receive new posts by email.

Email Address

TOQLive: Andrew Joyce with James Edwards & Kevin MacDonald on Jewish influence on public opinion on race, etc.

Cookie and Privacy Settings

How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, you cannot refuse them without impacting how our site functions. You can block or delete them by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Click to enable/disable google webfonts.

Google Map Settings:

Click to enable/disable google maps.

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Click to enable/disable video embeds.

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.